Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
Speaker 1: where he left off with the Pam Bondi discussion with
Speaker 1: the OIG investigators. Now, miss an sorry is asking the questions. Hi,
Speaker 1: Miss Bondi, thank you all right. I would like to
Speaker 1: focus questions on failure to comply with the Oversight Committee subpoena.
Speaker 1: On August fifth of last year, Chairman Comer issued a
Speaker 1: subpoena to the DOJ for all documents and communications from
Speaker 1: DJs Epstein and Maxwell related cases. On August twenty second
Speaker 1: of last year, DOJ produced approximately thirty three thousand pages
Speaker 1: to the committee. Almost all of those materials were already
Speaker 1: publicly available, and that's all that we have received from
Speaker 1: the DOJ in the ten months since the subpoena was issued.
Speaker 1: Why was the first production in August made of mostly
Speaker 1: and all publicly available material, Bondy, as I said earlier,
Speaker 1: Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward managed the release of those documents,
Speaker 1: and since then the Department received and released approximately three
Speaker 1: million documents. Miss ansorry, but did anyone in the administration
Speaker 1: direct you to release material that were already publicly available
Speaker 1: pertaining specifically to the subpoena. Dylan, I think we're having
Speaker 1: some difficulty hearing you. Bondy, Yeah and sorry. Okay. The
Speaker 1: question in regards to our subpoena before prior to the
Speaker 1: Epstein Files Transparency Act, Bondy, I have to turn. I
Speaker 1: can't turn my neck, so I have to turn towards you.
Speaker 1: If that's okay, Miss ansorry. So the question is, did
Speaker 1: anyone in the administration direct you to release only public
Speaker 1: available information in those thirty three thousand pages? Bondy, as
Speaker 1: I said, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward handled that, Miss
Speaker 1: an Sorry, I understand that, but Bondie cuts her off.
Speaker 1: I had minimum involvement in that and sorry. Buddy works
Speaker 1: for you. Bondy, Yes and sorry. Did someone direct you
Speaker 1: to only release publicly of vallible information in regard to
Speaker 1: our subpoena to the Department of Justice? Bondi, No and sorry. Okay, Bondie,
Speaker 1: to my knowledge, no and sorry. Do you believe that
Speaker 1: the Department is obligated to respond to the Overside Committee subpoena? Bondi,
Speaker 1: Yes and sorry. In November of twenty twenty five, President
Speaker 1: Trump posted on truth Social about the Committee subpoena, saying quote,
Speaker 1: the House Overside Committee can have whatever they are legally
Speaker 1: entitled to. Do you agree with President Trump? Bondie? Can
Speaker 1: you repeat that? And sorry? In November of twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: President Trump posted on truth Social about the Committee subpoena,
Speaker 1: saying quote, the House Overside Committee can have whatever they
Speaker 1: are legally entitled to. Do you agree with the President, Bondie?
Speaker 1: I agree that you're entitled to everything you're legally entitled to.
Speaker 1: Yes and sorry? Okay? And then finally, does the committee
Speaker 1: need to bring you in for a deposition instead of
Speaker 1: a transcribed interview to get complete answers? Bondy, No, and sorry, Okay,
Speaker 1: thank you we have, mister Submerannium. Thank you for coming
Speaker 1: in today. I was just curious if you went through
Speaker 1: any of the files yourself, Like, did you read through
Speaker 1: any of the files yourself? BONDI some of them, probably, sure,
Speaker 1: some of them. But there were three million pages, so
Speaker 1: very little Submarennium, right, and you were looking for anything
Speaker 1: in particular in the files, Bondy no, mister Submarannium. And
Speaker 1: there's rumors of an effort potentially to look through the files,
Speaker 1: for President Trump's name, in particular, are you aware of
Speaker 1: any sort of effort at the Department of Justice anywhere
Speaker 1: else in the administration of doing that, Bondy, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to discuss anything with the Department or discussions that
Speaker 1: did or did not take place. Question. I'm asking about
Speaker 1: your knowledge of any sort of effort to do that,
Speaker 1: not any sort of discussions that happened, Bondi. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to discuss any conversations that did or did not happen.
Speaker 1: Regarding that question, I'm not asking about conversations, just to
Speaker 1: be clear, just your knowledge of any effort to look
Speaker 1: for President Trump's name during the redaction process or during
Speaker 1: the release of the files, BONDI. What I do know
Speaker 1: is you can go online. That's why I'm hesitating, and
Speaker 1: there are three million pages, and I believe you can
Speaker 1: type in a name and it'll come up. So I'm
Speaker 1: sure many people did that, with many individuals, and I
Speaker 1: believe members of Congress names are also listed in there.
Speaker 1: So to my knowledge, did that happen, Yes, but not
Speaker 1: only with President Trump, with multiple people, by many of us,
Speaker 1: as you will, that was done question. Absolutely, You're right.
Speaker 1: But what I'm asking though, is before the release of
Speaker 1: the files, during the process or releasing the files, was
Speaker 1: there any effort to look through for President Trump's name
Speaker 1: or any other administration officials name before the release of
Speaker 1: the files? Bondy, I don't recall question. And are you
Speaker 1: aware of any effort to do that? You don't recall, Bondi,
Speaker 1: I don't recall question, okay, And you suggested he gets
Speaker 1: cut off by BONDI again, there were three million pages. Question,
Speaker 1: it's not about what's in the files. I'm asking any
Speaker 1: effort to look for President Trump or any other administration
Speaker 1: officials name in the files, up to the release of
Speaker 1: the files and in the process of releasing the files, Bondy,
Speaker 1: I don't recall, Submaranian, you don't recall, okay. And then
Speaker 1: at various points you suggested that the DOJ holds a
Speaker 1: significant volume of child sexual abuse material within the Epstein files.
Speaker 1: Can you clarify what that means, what you meant by that, BONDI. Sure,
Speaker 1: it's called c SAM and that is protected, as you
Speaker 1: know under the law, highly protected child sexual abuse material.
Speaker 1: And yes, I'm aware of that, and I'm aware that
Speaker 1: there was much of that contained in the Epstein files.
Speaker 1: Question and would you say that some of the files
Speaker 1: that would have been withheld are those types of materials? Bondy,
Speaker 1: to my knowledge yes, question okay. And last month, mister
Speaker 1: Blanche set on a podcast that quote, the FBI did
Speaker 1: not collect any video of mister Epstein or others participating
Speaker 1: in sex acts. Would you agree with that statement? Answer?
Speaker 1: I don't have direct knowledge of that, but I do
Speaker 1: know that initially when all those videos were obtained, they
Speaker 1: were scoured through by attorneys and probably agents to be
Speaker 1: sure no victims were released, and much of it, if
Speaker 1: not all, of it ended up being child sexual abuse
Speaker 1: material that he downloaded. If that makes sense. Question, that
Speaker 1: makes sense. Thank you. That's very helpful. And you have
Speaker 1: spoken and have you spoken with any of the survivors, Dylan,
Speaker 1: you can answer this, but you can answer it again, Bondy.
Speaker 1: I spoke with one attorney, I believe. Question one of
Speaker 1: their attorneys. Bondi, I spoke with one of their attorneys,
Speaker 1: I believe. I know attorneys in my office have spoken
Speaker 1: with multiple attorneys who represented or represent the survivors, And
Speaker 1: as you know, it's not appropriate for us to talk
Speaker 1: to someone who is represented directly without talking to their attorney.
Speaker 1: I've spoke with one of the attorneys. Question, were they
Speaker 1: or their attorneys at all consulted in the process or
Speaker 1: release in the files? Bondy, I don't know. I don't recall. Question.
Speaker 1: You don't recall. And at one point there was talk
Speaker 1: about given the survivors access to their own files or
Speaker 1: statements that they made. Was there any discussion about that
Speaker 1: or sorry? Do you have any knowledge of any sort
Speaker 1: of or understanding of any sort of effort to do that, Bondy?
Speaker 1: Can you repeat that question? The survivors have asked for
Speaker 1: their own files, meaning statements that they gave at the
Speaker 1: time that they were interviewed. Do you have any awareness
Speaker 1: of this request, Bondy, I would direct that to the
Speaker 1: current attorney general. Question, but while you were attorney general, Bondi,
Speaker 1: I don't recall question. I believe they made that request.
Speaker 1: You don't recall them requesting that publicly or directly, Bondy
Speaker 1: access to the files? Question? Yes, Bondy, meaning question, they
Speaker 1: have asked for their own statements. There are three or
Speaker 1: two statements, and so they have said that they requested this.
Speaker 1: I believe it was a public letter too, And I'm
Speaker 1: wondering if you would have any knowledge of that request. BONDI,
Speaker 1: I don't recall. I would direct that to Deputy Attorney
Speaker 1: General Blanche. Question, in your opinion, would you have been
Speaker 1: willing to fulfill this request? We have asked multiple times
Speaker 1: if any victim wants to meet with us, that we
Speaker 1: would meet with them and that would include that information,
Speaker 1: to give them that information to discuss it with them
Speaker 1: in my mind. Question great, and then I believe you
Speaker 1: answered this earlier. But based on everything you've seen, do
Speaker 1: you believe that the Department should move forward with any
Speaker 1: effort or prosecution related to the matter. Bondi, As I said,
Speaker 1: we had Jay Clayton in the Southern District of New
Speaker 1: York open an active case on the matter around Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein and other individuals when I left office. I believe
Speaker 1: that was still a pending investigation, so I can't answer.
Speaker 1: I would direct that to Todd Blanche or Jay Clayton. Question.
Speaker 1: Thank you, mister Frost, thank you. I just have one
Speaker 1: more question for clarification. In response to one of the
Speaker 1: questions he just asked about people name searching Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: you mentioned that maybe he was name searched or members
Speaker 1: of Congress had been name searched. But then you looked
Speaker 1: at us and said, y'all, which leads me to believe
Speaker 1: I just want clarification. Are you saying that you know
Speaker 1: that members of Congress search for President Trump's name or
Speaker 1: search for people's names in the files? Miss BONDI can
Speaker 1: you repeat that? Frost? So, when he asked you about
Speaker 1: was there an effort to search for President Trump's names
Speaker 1: in the file, you started talking about the fact that, well,
Speaker 1: people can go online and look up anybody's name. You
Speaker 1: can look up the President's name. There's members of Congress
Speaker 1: names in it. Then you looked at us and said,
Speaker 1: y'all have searched this as well. And I just when
Speaker 1: you said that, did you mean members of Congress have
Speaker 1: searched for President Trump's name in the files? BONDI, anyone
Speaker 1: ken it's public, Frost. But by the thing you just
Speaker 1: told us a little earlier, it seemed like you of
Speaker 1: knowledge of members of Congress name searching President Trump's name. BONDY, oh, no,
Speaker 1: that I don't have knowledge of. I don't recall that.
Speaker 1: But anyone can go in and search for any name
Speaker 1: on there, and hopefully the system's working where it will
Speaker 1: pull it up, mister Frost. The reason I asked this
Speaker 1: is because they were reporting of when you were testifying
Speaker 1: to the Judiciary Committee that you had in information on
Speaker 1: our search history from when we went to the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice. Was that something that you were being told
Speaker 1: to keep. Were you told to keep that information? The
Speaker 1: spying on members of Congress as they were looking through
Speaker 1: the Epstein files, Bondy, No one told me to spy
Speaker 1: on members of Congress, Frost, So is that a decision
Speaker 1: you made on your own, Bondie. Members of Congress were
Speaker 1: not spied on. That system downloads anyone who looks at it,
Speaker 1: because there are millions of pages of unredacted victims' names.
Speaker 1: There faces names, information that's not public, that's built into
Speaker 1: the program. In fact, when you go and review it,
Speaker 1: if we also have had I don't know if it's
Speaker 1: still happening. People in the room watching what was happening
Speaker 1: to be sure no one was walking out with unredacted
Speaker 1: victims' names on a list, and in fact they did
Speaker 1: find someone doing that. Frost. I'm aware that's how the
Speaker 1: system might work, but obviously you know, I'm trying to
Speaker 1: ask if someone ask you to or why you had
Speaker 1: printouts of it in your hearing at Judiciary Committee BONDI oh,
Speaker 1: a stafford gave me that lower level staffer gave me
Speaker 1: a print out, and I intended to talk to Representative
Speaker 1: Jayapel when she was questioning me about it. No one
Speaker 1: was trying to hide it. I went and I met
Speaker 1: with her for about an hour and a half after
Speaker 1: the hearing as well in person in my office, and
Speaker 1: I planned on discussing with that with her, but I
Speaker 1: couldn't get a word in edgewise on that. And the
Speaker 1: point of that was to show her that we had
Speaker 1: been a lot of talk about our particular graphic. I
Speaker 1: believed it was it was a circle. There had been
Speaker 1: a lot of talk that we were trying to hide
Speaker 1: men's names because the half a graphic showed a man
Speaker 1: and the other half was redacted, when in fact, once
Speaker 1: anyone went online and saw the unredacted version, you could
Speaker 1: see that those were women and victims. That's why they
Speaker 1: had been redacted. Mister Frost, Uh huh, thank you. All right, folks,
Speaker 1: who're gonna wrap up right there and in the next
Speaker 1: episode dealing with the topic, We're gonna pick up where
Speaker 1: we left off. All the information that goes with this
Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
Speaker 1: and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
Speaker 1: this episode, so we're going to pick up where we
Speaker 1: left off with Pam Bondi and her interview with Congress. Question.
Speaker 1: All right, miss Bondie, we've got about maybe three minutes
Speaker 1: left in the round. I'm going to just try to
Speaker 1: efficiently hit a few straggling questions and then we'll take
Speaker 1: a break. Just one question globally, mister Blanche previously represented
Speaker 1: President and Trump in a personal capacity. To your knowledge,
Speaker 1: did anyone at the Department of Justice ever express concern
Speaker 1: about mister Blanche's management of the Epstein files process given
Speaker 1: his previous personal representation of the President? Dylan, you can
Speaker 1: answer that to the extent that it doesn't reveal internal
Speaker 1: deliberation of the Department of Justice, Bondie, I believe Attorney
Speaker 1: General Blanche follows all ethics rules. He's highly ethical and
Speaker 1: follow the rules of ethics. Question. Miss Maxwell has reportedly
Speaker 1: received preferential treatment at her new prison, special privileges in
Speaker 1: terms of meetings, private meals, a puppy. Do you have
Speaker 1: any understanding of why Miss Maxwell's receiving those perks. Answer,
Speaker 1: I was not aware of that until I read it
Speaker 1: yesterday somewhere. Question would you tend to think that those
Speaker 1: perks are warranted given the gravity of her crimes? Answer?
Speaker 1: I would direct that to the Bureau of Prisons, including
Speaker 1: its accuracy. Question with respect to the committee subpoena, I
Speaker 1: think you used a phrase the committee can have what
Speaker 1: they're legally entitled to. I think the President has previously
Speaker 1: used that same phrase publicly. You know, what's your understanding
Speaker 1: of the scope of that, because I think from our
Speaker 1: point of view, essentially all three million pages of EFTA
Speaker 1: would certainly be covered by the subpoena, and I think
Speaker 1: probably more than that, because the terms aren't exactly the same.
Speaker 1: What's your understanding of what this committee is legally entitled
Speaker 1: to pursuant to a subpoena? Answer to be able to
Speaker 1: review an unredacted version of all the documents, which is
Speaker 1: what is in the reading room, including I believe the
Speaker 1: duplicative material as well for you to review. And that's
Speaker 1: why the reading room was set up with underdotted material.
Speaker 1: Question to your recollection, at least during your time as
Speaker 1: Attorney General, was the reading room efta process viewed by
Speaker 1: the Department as a fulfillment of the Committee subpoena answer.
Speaker 1: Can you repeat the question? Question? Yeah, the reading room
Speaker 1: at DJ to your recollection when you were in office,
Speaker 1: was the reading room a completion of the Department's obligation
Speaker 1: under the Committee subpoena answer? To my knowledge, everyone was
Speaker 1: doing everything they could to comply with the Committee subpoena question. Okay,
Speaker 1: and one last question before we go off the record.
Speaker 1: You've mentioned mister Clayton's investigation in the Southern District of
Speaker 1: New York. I think in the build up to that
Speaker 1: there was some public back and forth. President Trump posted
Speaker 1: on truth Social that he was asking the Department to
Speaker 1: investigate Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman,
Speaker 1: J P. Morgan Chase. And now this is a quote
Speaker 1: many other people and institutions. You have already described your
Speaker 1: understanding of the investigation. I want to ask you again,
Speaker 1: do you have an understanding of who the many other
Speaker 1: people and institutions are that the President was referring to. Answer? No,
Speaker 1: but I do now recall that I did respond to that,
Speaker 1: and that's how it became public that Jay Clayton was
Speaker 1: assigned and looking into that question, yes, totally agree, but
Speaker 1: you don't have a personal understanding of who those other
Speaker 1: people and institutions were. Answer no question. Do you have
Speaker 1: any sense of why the only individuals included on the
Speaker 1: President's list were Democrats despite the fact that prominent Republicans
Speaker 1: also appear in the Epstein files? Answer no question. Okay,
Speaker 1: thank you, and with that we can go off the record.
Speaker 1: Mister Emmer will go back on the record. I understand
Speaker 1: the witness would like to make a clarification, BONDI. I
Speaker 1: was asked by one of the members of Congress, I believe,
Speaker 1: Congressman Frost, whether I directed the President's name to be
Speaker 1: reviewed to see if his name was in the documents.
Speaker 1: I don't believe. I know I did not direct anyone's
Speaker 1: name to be reviewed to see if it was in there.
Speaker 1: But it was done because I remember now. I don't
Speaker 1: know the timeframe though, but I remember being aware, of
Speaker 1: course that his name was in it, along with hundreds
Speaker 1: or accountless countless other individuals, and I think the list
Speaker 1: ultimately came out as well, involving high profile individuals. So
Speaker 1: I'm aware that his name was searched, but that was
Speaker 1: among many many names that the department searched. I said hundreds.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if it's hundreds, but many, many high
Speaker 1: profile names. And in fact, that list was ultimately released,
Speaker 1: so I was aware of that, but I did not
Speaker 1: direct it. Mister Emmer, thank you. Question. I would like
Speaker 1: to pick up where we left off. During the majority's
Speaker 1: first hour. We were discussing redactions, the Department's practices as
Speaker 1: it relates to those redactions, and I want to discuss
Speaker 1: It's been reported that there were several documents that were
Speaker 1: produced pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act that were
Speaker 1: on the online interface on DJ's website that were subsequently removed.
Speaker 1: Are you aware of documents being removed? Answer yes. I
Speaker 1: believe there were errors where the victims' names were in
Speaker 1: advertly released that shouldn't have been and those were removed,
Speaker 1: and the names or information regarding individuals was redacted that
Speaker 1: should have been released, and upon learning that, the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice redacted and corrected both measures. Question are you
Speaker 1: aware of any documents that were removed that were not
Speaker 1: subsequently produced in their redacted form? Answer not to my knowledge,
Speaker 1: unless you want to refresh my memory, but not to
Speaker 1: my knowledge questions, Starting on February fifth, twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: the DOJ allowed members of Congress to go and review
Speaker 1: the unredacted versions of the Epstein files. I believe that
Speaker 1: you were asked during the previous hour. But you can
Speaker 1: elaborate on what the process was in place to allow
Speaker 1: members of Congress to review unredacted documents at the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice. Answer it's laid out. I believe it was
Speaker 1: put in writing the hours that they could go in
Speaker 1: what they could see which was unredacted. But there was
Speaker 1: a process, but I don't have all the details in
Speaker 1: front of me. Question, were there any restrictions placed on
Speaker 1: members of Congress as far as what they could review? Answer?
Speaker 1: Not as what they could review. No, and again even
Speaker 1: the duplicative material was included in there. To my knowledge. Question,
Speaker 1: when you and then a Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche
Speaker 1: appeared before this committee as part of the briefing that
Speaker 1: you provided in March, I believe you suggested and invited
Speaker 1: members of Congress that were present to come meet with
Speaker 1: you and Blanche personally. Is that right? Answer? Yes? Question
Speaker 1: how many members on our committee took you up on
Speaker 1: that offer. Answer. Initially, I believe almost all the members
Speaker 1: were here. Oh, I'm sorry, you mean here when we
Speaker 1: came to gets cut off by Emmer. How many members
Speaker 1: that you invited pursue into the briefing that you were at?
Speaker 1: How many members actually took you up on that offer? Answer?
Speaker 1: You mean come to our office? Question? Correct answer. I
Speaker 1: don't believe any did. Question and BONDI cuts them off. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Yes, some, I'm sorry, some of the Republican
Speaker 1: members did. Yes, Representative Bobert Cloud and Perry maybe represented
Speaker 1: Birchant maybe, yeah, I'm sorry, yes, three, I was thinking
Speaker 1: on the Democrat side. No Democrats took us up on that.
Speaker 1: I did meet at one point, but she is not
Speaker 1: on the committee. Representative Jayapel Emmer question and to be clear,
Speaker 1: no Democrats on the committee took you up on that offer? Answer? No, okay, cool?
Speaker 1: How many Republicans showed up to talk to Les Wexner like,
Speaker 1: come on, stop with the games, this is bullshit? Question
Speaker 1: and during that briefing gets cut off by BONDI, to
Speaker 1: my knowledge, no to meet with anyone in my office,
Speaker 1: but not with me. Question, thank you? And during the
Speaker 1: briefing in March. Did any Democrat ask you substantive questions
Speaker 1: as to relating to the Epstein and Maxwell matter? Answer
Speaker 1: the briefing that we had here in Congress. No. In fact,
Speaker 1: one of them yelled that they were mad at the
Speaker 1: c span wasn't there, and they got up and left.
Speaker 1: As Deputy Attorney General Blanche and I continue to brief you,
Speaker 1: I believe it was for an hour and a half
Speaker 1: and answer your questions. Yeah, about the dow. This lady's unbelievable,
Speaker 1: and I mean that literally and figuratively. Question and a
Speaker 1: couple questions. Do you have any knowledge as to why
Speaker 1: the Biden administration did not release any files related to
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell. Answer No, I don't have
Speaker 1: any knowledge on that. Nor do I have any knowledge
Speaker 1: whether any of these members of Congress ask that they
Speaker 1: be released during the Biden administration. My understanding is none
Speaker 1: of them did to my knowledge. May be representative Conna
Speaker 1: that is such a weak ass out. So because the
Speaker 1: last team didn't do a good job, we're not going
Speaker 1: to do a good job either. Question Attorney General BONDI,
Speaker 1: given the number of times you testified on the subject,
Speaker 1: and that you are no longer involved in DJ matters.
Speaker 1: Is there anything that you have not been asked today
Speaker 1: or any other setting that you believe is relevant to
Speaker 1: this committee's investigation. Answer No, Chairman, Comer, Madam Attorney General,
Speaker 1: thank you for being here today. You've answered questions going
Speaker 1: back to the briefing that we had. You've answered four
Speaker 1: hours worth of questions, responsive from our requests. So we
Speaker 1: want to thank you for that. And I think that
Speaker 1: concludes the majority's questions. So thank you again for being
Speaker 1: here and answering our questions. BONDI, thank you, Comer. That
Speaker 1: concludes the majority's questions. Emmer, we can go off record. We'redacted, Okay,
Speaker 1: so we're back on the record, Miss Bondie. I understand
Speaker 1: you have a clarification you'd like to make. Bondy, Yeah,
Speaker 1: regarding the documents in the reading room, when I said
Speaker 1: all six million were available, I know I said the
Speaker 1: duplicative ones were, but I want to clarify, and I
Speaker 1: was just informed of this that the unresponsive documents that
Speaker 1: have nothing to do with the case are not in
Speaker 1: the reading room, nor is anything that contains privileged material.
Speaker 1: So if I could clarify that, and then one more
Speaker 1: point is Representative Garcia outside saying that I quote through
Speaker 1: Todd on placing the blame on Todd Blanche. That is
Speaker 1: one hundred percent incorrect. Todd Blanche is one of the
Speaker 1: most highly ethical individuals I know, and I think he
Speaker 1: is making an incredible acting attorney general, and he managed
Speaker 1: this investigation. It was a herculean task with very little error,
Speaker 1: and Todd did an excellent job in my opinion, and
Speaker 1: is doing an excellent job as Attorney General. I'm not
Speaker 1: blaming anything on Todd, but you are. We just read
Speaker 1: the transcript ourselves redacted. Thank you for the clarification, BONDI,
Speaker 1: thank you. Question. I will also clarify from the transcript
Speaker 1: that Congressman Congresswoman Lee was president at the previous round,
Speaker 1: although we neglected to announce her at the time. Question
Speaker 1: all right, miss Bondi, I would like to ask you
Speaker 1: a few questions about the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which
Speaker 1: has already been discussed to some degree today. As you know,
Speaker 1: on November nineteenth of last year, President Trump signed EFTA,
Speaker 1: and that's what we'll call it, EFTA into law. Just
Speaker 1: starting with a few questions about the law's passage. It
Speaker 1: was publicly reported that the week before the bill passed
Speaker 1: here in Congress, President Trump met with Congressman Lauren Bobert
Speaker 1: in the White House Situation Room in an attempt to
Speaker 1: convince her to vote against the bill. Were you present
Speaker 1: at that meeting? Answer? I was president at the meeting.
Speaker 1: I was president at the meeting. Aresident Trump was not
Speaker 1: president at the meeting. Question that's very helpful, thank you.
Speaker 1: What's your recollection of who was president at the meeting? Answer? Myself,
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General Blanche Legal Affairs, which would be James
Speaker 1: Blair and James Braid. I believe Cash Betel. Perhaps we'd
Speaker 1: have to ask Representative Bobert question. I understand. Thank you.
Speaker 1: The public reporting has characterized the meeting as an effort
Speaker 1: to persuade Miss Bobert to vote against the bill. Is
Speaker 1: that your recollection of the meeting? Answer? I recall the
Speaker 1: discussion with her was the concern about passing the bill
Speaker 1: would jeopardize the identity of victims, which is exactly what
Speaker 1: ended up happening. After the bill was passed, victims' names
Speaker 1: were inadvertently released. I recall the topic being protecting victims,
Speaker 1: and there may have been a couple more individuals in
Speaker 1: the meeting. I'm sorry, I can't recall. We can ask
Speaker 1: Representative Bobert for her recollection question. Thank you answer, But
Speaker 1: President Trump was not at the meeting. Question, got it?
Speaker 1: Do you recall any concerns being discussed in that meeting
Speaker 1: beyond survivor identity? Answer? Survivor identity. That's a good way
Speaker 1: of putting it. Survivor identity. Victim's identity was the only
Speaker 1: thing that I recall at this time. But we can
Speaker 1: ask Representative Bobert. Question. It was publicly reported that at
Speaker 1: least one of the members may have been pressured by
Speaker 1: the administration the vote against the act. Do you recall
Speaker 1: or are you aware of a similar meeting to the
Speaker 1: one we talked about? Answer? No, not to my knowledge. Question.
Speaker 1: Thank you answer, I don't recall. Question you don't recall
Speaker 1: you're not aware of such a meeting either? Away, Is
Speaker 1: that right? Answer? Yes? All right, folks. We're going to
Speaker 1: wrap up right here and in the next episode dealing
Speaker 1: with the topic, We're gonna pick up where we left off.
Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
Speaker 1: found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome
Speaker 1: to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
Speaker 1: we're going to dive right back in and pick up
Speaker 1: where we left off with Pam Bondi in her interview
Speaker 1: with Congress. Question, I'd like to spend a little more
Speaker 1: time on the document release themselves. So, as you well know,
Speaker 1: on December nineteenth, which was with the thirty day statutory deadline,
Speaker 1: the department released about four thousand files. Then over the
Speaker 1: next few days there were three other releases, and then
Speaker 1: on January thirtieth of this year, a big release of
Speaker 1: about three and a half million documents, which the Department
Speaker 1: said fulfilled its duties under the Act. You have touched
Speaker 1: on this today, so I don't want you to repeat yourself,
Speaker 1: but what do you recall as far as the process
Speaker 1: for that first production, for working with survivors councils, any
Speaker 1: recollection of how that process functioned? Answer? No question, okay.
Speaker 1: Would mister Blanche probably have a more detailed understanding of
Speaker 1: that answer or some of his staff question. There was
Speaker 1: a letter from mister Blanche on the day of that
Speaker 1: first production that listed the components of DOJ that were
Speaker 1: included in the search in the poll, and that was FBI.
Speaker 1: I can give you a minute it may be one
Speaker 1: of the exhibits that was already passed out. Bondy, what
Speaker 1: was the date of that question. I think that was
Speaker 1: on December nineteenth, Dylan. I don't think that's been marked
Speaker 1: as an exhibit redacted. It's literally just a few agencies. Bondy.
Speaker 1: I don't have the document, Dylan, it hasn't been marked
Speaker 1: redacted question. Okay, Yeah, it was just telling Congress that OIG,
Speaker 1: of course, inside of DOJ, the Office of the Inspector
Speaker 1: General of the FBI, of course, the Bureau of Prisons,
Speaker 1: which makes sense, SDNY and SDFL, the two jurisdictions in
Speaker 1: which the two Epstein investigations occurred. We were just wondering
Speaker 1: whether other components of dj such as the DEA, would
Speaker 1: have been part of the collection process. Dylan. I think
Speaker 1: the witness is entitled to see the document before she
Speaker 1: answers questions about it redacted. That's fine, we can do that.
Speaker 1: Give us a second to pull it out, Bondi. And
Speaker 1: I'd rely on what Deputy Attorney General Blanche put in
Speaker 1: writing regarding the components who were involved. Question, and that'll
Speaker 1: save us some time and paper. Would it be your
Speaker 1: understanding that if Deputy Blanche listed components, then that would
Speaker 1: be your best understanding of the components. Answer yes, question okay,
Speaker 1: in that case, I don't think we have to do
Speaker 1: the whole exhibit. Answer. And I don't recall the DEA
Speaker 1: being involved. Question okay, thank you? Answer whether they were
Speaker 1: or weren't? Question. On December twenty second, the DOJ released
Speaker 1: about eleven thousand documents. That was the third production of documents.
Speaker 1: There were a four or five day period in which
Speaker 1: I think there were three or four releases. One of
Speaker 1: them on December twenty second, had some redaction related challenges.
Speaker 1: You could use software to get around some of the
Speaker 1: redactions or copy in pasting. Do you recall whether the
Speaker 1: department had an understanding of those problems before those documents
Speaker 1: were released? Answer, oh, I don't believe we did. I
Speaker 1: do recall that there were problems after the fact. Question.
Speaker 1: On December twenty third, about thirty thousand additional pages were
Speaker 1: released the fourth production. That production included a higher volume
Speaker 1: of material related to President Trump. It included some allegations
Speaker 1: against President Trump, and so the he gets cut off
Speaker 1: by Pam BONDI can I clarify question? Yeah, answer, I
Speaker 1: think you said December wasn't that in August when the
Speaker 1: thirty three thousand pages were released. Question. December twenty third
Speaker 1: of last year the Department's fourth EFTA production and that
Speaker 1: had that had about thirty thousand pages of content. Is
Speaker 1: our understanding, Bondy, I don't specifically recall that, other than
Speaker 1: it was a rolling release of documents as they came in,
Speaker 1: because we continued to get additional documents after EFTA was passed,
Speaker 1: as we were attempting to comply with the order, and
Speaker 1: I believe that a significant amount, almost maybe a million
Speaker 1: pages was added from SDNY Southern District of New York. Question.
Speaker 1: We were just going to ask. On the day of
Speaker 1: that release, December twenty third, the Department released a statement
Speaker 1: calling the claims against President Trump that were in the
Speaker 1: release untrue and sensationalist and unfounded and false. And we
Speaker 1: just wanted to ask, to the best of your knowledge,
Speaker 1: were any of the allegations against President Trump that were
Speaker 1: included in that release investigated by the Department of Justice? Answer?
Speaker 1: I don't believe that they were investigated by any Department
Speaker 1: of Justice, And that might be a question for the
Speaker 1: Biden administration because if I recall it, was all just
Speaker 1: before the twenty twenty election, the salacious allegations, always somebody else,
Speaker 1: always pointing the finger somewhere else. I'm done with Maga,
Speaker 1: I'm done with Pam Bondy, and I'm done with Donald Trump. Question.
Speaker 1: The next day, and I think you just alluded to this,
Speaker 1: the Department tweeted that SDNY and the FBI had discovered
Speaker 1: a million more documents. Do you have any recollection of
Speaker 1: the circumstances of the discovery of those documents? Answer? No,
Speaker 1: But it made it very difficult to comply within the
Speaker 1: thirty days question. On January thirtieth, there was the largest
Speaker 1: release of documents, about three and a half million pages.
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General Blanche at the time wrote another letter
Speaker 1: to Congress. It's been discussed here today. There was the
Speaker 1: phrase that more than six million pages had been identified
Speaker 1: as potentially responsive and the volume. The total volume or
Speaker 1: release ended up being around three and a half million pages.
Speaker 1: Three and a half million and six million those were
Speaker 1: page counts. Do you have an understanding or a recollection
Speaker 1: of how many documents were potentially responsive and documents produced?
Speaker 1: Answered no, And to the best of my knowledge, I asked,
Speaker 1: I answered that question previously as to why there were
Speaker 1: so many documents. Question, do you have an understanding or
Speaker 1: recollection as to how many documents were ultimately tagged as unresponsive? Dylan,
Speaker 1: I think this has been asked and answered, but you
Speaker 1: can answer it again, Bondie. Not an exact amount redacted?
Speaker 1: Do you have any recollection or understanding of how many
Speaker 1: documents were tagged as duplicative? Dylan, Same, Bondy same. I
Speaker 1: don't recall the exact number redacted. There I think was
Speaker 1: a figure in this letter from mister Blanche, and we
Speaker 1: can just ask him, but I think he had said
Speaker 1: around two hundred thousand pages were adacted or withheld for privilege. Answer, yeah,
Speaker 1: And I was just looking for that letter that I
Speaker 1: believe you had provided to me, and I would refer
Speaker 1: to that from ag Blanche as to the number of
Speaker 1: documents that fell into each category, and that's the letter
Speaker 1: that you provided to me, dated February fourteenth, twenty twenty six. Question,
Speaker 1: and so I would assume, But let me just ask
Speaker 1: for the record. If mister Blanche says, hey, around two
Speaker 1: hundred thousand pages were redacted or withheld for privilege, if
Speaker 1: we wanted to understand, well, how many of those pages
Speaker 1: were redacted, but how many were withheld? That would not
Speaker 1: be the question that you would have involvement with answer
Speaker 1: correct question, Mister Blanchers, staff would have an understanding of that.
Speaker 1: Is that right, Bondie answer correct question, Thank you, and
Speaker 1: I would assume the same answer would apply for trying
Speaker 1: to understand how many documents were withheld under different categories
Speaker 1: of statutory withholdings. Is that correct? Answer? Correct? Could I
Speaker 1: add one more thing question? Of course? Answer a privilege
Speaker 1: was produced to you. I don't believe you've shown me
Speaker 1: that today in the documents question. Thank you. I'd like
Speaker 1: to touch on victim related redaction challenges, which have been
Speaker 1: discussed to some extent here. I would like to just
Speaker 1: introduce as minority exhibit an example of that problem Bondie
Speaker 1: Minority exhibits. CE was Mark four identification redacted. I'll give
Speaker 1: you a moment to look that over. Mister Gwynn Council,
Speaker 1: Can I just clarify something. We're confident that the way
Speaker 1: this proceeding and these exhibits are going to be treated,
Speaker 1: the way that this transcript and these exhibits, you're not
Speaker 1: concerned with introducing this into the record redacted. We're not
Speaker 1: going to read any of the identifying information you see
Speaker 1: on the document. Gwinn Okay, great, BONDI. It was just
Speaker 1: introduced to the record though, so that'll be sealed redacted. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: That will not be publicly available redacted. Question, so if
Speaker 1: you have a moment to look this over, this is
Speaker 1: an email that was originally included in the January thirtieth
Speaker 1: production from the Department. I know that there's been some
Speaker 1: public discussion of this email previously. You may have discussed
Speaker 1: this email previously. I think from our point of view,
Speaker 1: this is a difficult email to understand. The subject is
Speaker 1: Epstein Victim List. There's a list of names. The vast
Speaker 1: majority of those names are not redacted. Do you have
Speaker 1: a sense or understanding of how this document could have
Speaker 1: gone unredacted? Answer? No, but I would believe it's not intentional.
Speaker 1: We had hundreds of lawyers that were working around the
Speaker 1: clock using their best efforts to protect victims, and that
Speaker 1: was the fear of human error, working such long hours
Speaker 1: to get three million pages plus of documents out within
Speaker 1: thirty days. Why not just use AI? Why not just
Speaker 1: use the technology that's available to you? Bondie I guess
Speaker 1: she was busy worrying about the DAL though. Question is
Speaker 1: it your best understanding that every document that was released
Speaker 1: did experience the full internal review process? In other words,
Speaker 1: every document benefited from a first level review and QC's
Speaker 1: won appropriate. Answer I believe so. Question did you ever
Speaker 1: receive any information or understanding as to how this particular
Speaker 1: document could have made it through any kind of review process?
Speaker 1: Answer no, I do recall that I don't know whichever
Speaker 1: it was, but one of the reviewers was working, I believe,
Speaker 1: very long hours and didn't properly hit saved after the
Speaker 1: redactions were done, and I believe Deputy Attorney General at
Speaker 1: the time. Blanche addressed that I don't know if this
Speaker 1: is the particular document question I was just going to
Speaker 1: I think mister Blanche also mentioned that in the briefing,
Speaker 1: you don't know whether that issue ended up affecting this
Speaker 1: document or not. Answer yes, question I think from a
Speaker 1: public point of view, the Department, by its own admission,
Speaker 1: has taken down several thousand doctors documents that mistakenly implicated
Speaker 1: to Reviver's identity or personal information. Do you have a
Speaker 1: personal perception of how the Department's victim redaction process performed, Bondie, Well,
Speaker 1: if one victim's name is released, it didn't perform properly,
Speaker 1: and multiple victims' names were released, and of course that,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, was done inadvertently, and everyone I knew
Speaker 1: involved in the process cared deeply about protecting the identity
Speaker 1: of the victim's question. Did you gain any understanding of
Speaker 1: whether there were particular common themes that were emerging in
Speaker 1: those mistakes, whether it was somebody not hitting save I'm
Speaker 1: not sure why that is so bothersome to you. It
Speaker 1: helps us to have oversight of the process. Do you
Speaker 1: have an understanding whether it was technical review or a
Speaker 1: process issue. Answer? I'm not aware other than what I
Speaker 1: just mentioned. Question. Thank you answer, And Deputy Attorney General
Speaker 1: Blanche at the time addressed, I believe all the questions
Speaker 1: here when he came with me a few months ago
Speaker 1: to discuss all of these issues, but I don't think
Speaker 1: you were present for that. She always has to try
Speaker 1: and get a dig in. Here's an idea, save your
Speaker 1: stupid ass commentary and answer the questions. And frankly, I
Speaker 1: really hope whoever the next administration is launches an investigation
Speaker 1: into PAMBONDI. Question in your review, do you think that
Speaker 1: the Department owes anything, whether that's an apology or financial
Speaker 1: compensation to survivors whose identities were exposed in the document released. Answer?
Speaker 1: We absolutely owe an apology to any victim's name anytime
Speaker 1: it's inadvertently released. Question. I'd like to touch on the
Speaker 1: claim that some material may have been over redacted or
Speaker 1: removed for possibly political reasons, and so I will introduce
Speaker 1: as minority Exhibit D this photograph. Question. You may be
Speaker 1: familiar with it. This is a photograph that was introduced
Speaker 1: on January thirtieth. It appears to be and the committee's
Speaker 1: understanding is that it is a photograph of Commerce Secretary
Speaker 1: Howard Lutnik and other individuals with mister Epstein on mister
Speaker 1: Epstein's Island in the US Virgin Islands. The photo was
Speaker 1: reportedly included in the initial production on January thirtieth, then
Speaker 1: taken down and then reposted after their repress inquiries on
Speaker 1: the subject. Do you have any understanding of why this
Speaker 1: image was taken down? Answer? I do. I believe that
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General Blanche or as staff believed that this
Speaker 1: was ai for some reason and not real. It was
Speaker 1: taken down, but it was put back up. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if it was intentionally taken down, but it was
Speaker 1: put back up because it was confirmed that it was
Speaker 1: Howard Lutnik and his family. Question do you have any
Speaker 1: direct or indirect knowledge of the photo being taken down
Speaker 1: for political reasons? Answer? No question. I would like to
Speaker 1: introduce as minority exhibit E one more similar image. Harmeat
Speaker 1: Dylan jumps in, Is that D redacted? Sorry, that's D Dylan,
Speaker 1: know it's E redacted. It's E. The Lutnik photo is D.
Speaker 1: The new exhibit is Z. Question. I don't know whether
Speaker 1: you've seen this image before. It was part of the
Speaker 1: production on December nineteenth of last year. It shows a
Speaker 1: series of photographs taken at one of mister Epstein's homes.
Speaker 1: It has bates number EFTA zero zero zero zero zero
Speaker 1: four six eight. In the bottom left portion of the photograph,
Speaker 1: there's another photograph of what appears to be President Trump
Speaker 1: prior to being president, it would seem and Glenn Maxwell.
Speaker 1: That's a publicly known photograph, and so it's a question
Speaker 1: of public record that the first Lady, as well as
Speaker 1: mister Epstein are obscured in the middle of that photograph
Speaker 1: underneath on the desk here, and there's one more image.
Speaker 1: It's hard to tell. I think there's a view of
Speaker 1: that image on top of the image I just described
Speaker 1: as President Trump prior to being on an office with
Speaker 1: a group of women in bathing suits. This photograph, this
Speaker 1: photo was originally included in the first December nineteenth production,
Speaker 1: same pattern. Where it went down and when it came
Speaker 1: back up. Do you have any understanding of why that
Speaker 1: image was taken down? Answer no. Question do you have
Speaker 1: any direct or indirect knowledge of this photo being taken
Speaker 1: down for political reasons? Answer no. All right, folks, We're
Speaker 1: gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode
Speaker 1: dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we
Speaker 1: left off. All the information that goes with this episode
Speaker 1: can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
Speaker 1: and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
Speaker 1: this episode, we're getting right back to the Pam Bondi
Speaker 1: interview with Congress. Question. I'd like to ask about a
Speaker 1: woman who was interviewed by the FBI four times and
Speaker 1: who accused mister Epstein and President and Trump of sexual misconduct.
Speaker 1: The January thirtieth production contained one of her interview summaries,
Speaker 1: but not the other three interview summaries, and in those
Speaker 1: other interviews, the woman had accused President Trump of sexual assault.
Speaker 1: The Department subsequently released those other interview notes on March
Speaker 1: fifth and said that they had been incorrectly coded as duplicative.
Speaker 1: Do you have any understanding of how these interview summaries
Speaker 1: came to be incorrectly coded as duplicative, Bondie, other than
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General Blanche's statement that it was I believe
Speaker 1: he said incorrectly labeled because they were already mentioned in
Speaker 1: a summary, so it popped in as duplicative, and then
Speaker 1: they were in fact put back online. And that's the
Speaker 1: best of my recollection from his statements. Question, thank you,
Speaker 1: And is it your perception that if we wanted to
Speaker 1: get more granular and try to understand what exactly happened
Speaker 1: with these documents, that mister Blanche would be a logical
Speaker 1: starting point. Answer? Well, I believe he came to this
Speaker 1: committee and I think he answered that question. I believe
Speaker 1: that he addressed that in front of this committee already. Question,
Speaker 1: do you have any knowledge of any documents related to
Speaker 1: this woman? And the claim being withheld from a DOJ
Speaker 1: production due to political considerations. Answer no question. Do you
Speaker 1: have any understanding of the extent to which this woman's
Speaker 1: allegations were investigated by the FBI or the deal? Answer
Speaker 1: no question. Our best understanding is that there are still
Speaker 1: a few more documents linked to this woman's serial number
Speaker 1: that have not been released. Do you have any understanding
Speaker 1: of those documents and their release status? Answer that is
Speaker 1: not my understanding, so no question. The woman's friend was
Speaker 1: also interviewed, and her interview was linked to different serial number.
Speaker 1: There's only one interview summary of the friend as far
Speaker 1: as we know, that's been released. Do you have any
Speaker 1: knowledge of any other documents under the friend's serial number
Speaker 1: being withheld? Answer no, mister Ginn hold on, council. Can
Speaker 1: I just ask you a question? And I don't know
Speaker 1: if it's possible to do this appropriately on the record,
Speaker 1: given the nature of the person you're talking about. But
Speaker 1: I'm not sure the Attorney General knows the identity of
Speaker 1: the person you're referring to. BONDI I don't gin And,
Speaker 1: so I think it's hard for her to make sure
Speaker 1: that she's correctly answering the questions about that person's status
Speaker 1: and the like her meet Dylan, Yeah, redacted. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: just the witness best understanding, whatever the understanding is, Dylan.
Speaker 1: We're not playing a game here, are we? Redacted? I
Speaker 1: think only you are? Dylan, ask her the answers. She
Speaker 1: gets cut off. I think you're the only one who is, Dylan,
Speaker 1: Or do you just want to play a shell game? Redacted?
Speaker 1: So the question and every question is to the best
Speaker 1: of the witnesses understanding, and if the witness lacks the
Speaker 1: understanding that you're describing, that's the answer, Dylan. If there's
Speaker 1: a lack of foundation in this question, that would be
Speaker 1: a basis not to answer it. BONDI, do you have
Speaker 1: the document? Redacted? We may. I think I'm willing to
Speaker 1: limit it to do you have an understanding of any
Speaker 1: document related to the woman or any friend of the
Speaker 1: woman being with hell by the DOJ Dylan, what woman?
Speaker 1: Lack of foundation? Mister Ginn, who is the woman? Redacted? Redacted?
Speaker 1: We don't have the rules of evidence here, but I
Speaker 1: think the witness understands. The initial discussion gets cut off
Speaker 1: by gin I think the witness, I think she understands,
Speaker 1: but I don't know if she does, because we don't
Speaker 1: know who the woman is. Bondie. I believe that the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice released everything legally that they could release
Speaker 1: under the law. I don't know who you're talking about
Speaker 1: specifically redacted, okay, answer, but I believe the Department in
Speaker 1: good faith complied with the Epstein Act. Question thank you
Speaker 1: one more? Which is similar category and to the best
Speaker 1: of your knowledge or awareness, there was an interview in
Speaker 1: January thirtieth production of an Epstein's survivor who said that
Speaker 1: when she was thirteen, Epstein took her to meet President Trump,
Speaker 1: and Epstein said to Trump not president at the time,
Speaker 1: so then Donald Trump. But the interview reflects that Epstein
Speaker 1: said to Trump, this is a good one. Huh. That
Speaker 1: document was taken down and then put back up. Do
Speaker 1: you have any knowledge of why that document I just
Speaker 1: described would have been taken down and putting back up? Answer?
Speaker 1: Not that specific document unless it was what we discussed earlier,
Speaker 1: one that was already in a summary, listed in a summary,
Speaker 1: orfore it was duplicative. Consider duplicative but then put back up?
Speaker 1: Question thank you, Bondie. And I believe the Deputy Attorney
Speaker 1: General at the time discussed that already. With this committee redacted,
Speaker 1: we're going to turn it over to some members who
Speaker 1: have questions of their own. Mister min thank you very much.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you being here, and again I'm sorry about
Speaker 1: your circumstances of your current situation. I wanted to first
Speaker 1: just ask about the scope of production, something you touched
Speaker 1: on earlier. As you've said, the DOJ received approximately six
Speaker 1: million documents, and under your and possibly then Deputy ag
Speaker 1: Attorney Blanche's direction, the DOJ released roughly three million of
Speaker 1: those documents. And I think you said earlier that three
Speaker 1: million documents that were not released were withheld because quote
Speaker 1: much of it was duplicative, some was privileged, and some
Speaker 1: material had nothing to do with Epstein. Does that sound accurate, Bondy?
Speaker 1: I believe there. I've answered this previously. God, she's literally
Speaker 1: one of the worst human beings ever. All the people
Speaker 1: that cried about Merrick Carlin, I was one of them.
Speaker 1: Where are you at now? Nothing to say here, mister Minn.
Speaker 1: I'm just recharacterizing what you said earlier. Does that sound
Speaker 1: familiar to you, that basically three million documents were not
Speaker 1: produced because it was duplicative, privileged, and had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with Epstein, BONDI, I would rely on the list
Speaker 1: that we discussed that Deputy Attorney General Blanche released As
Speaker 1: to the reason, Min, do you mind speaking into the mic?
Speaker 1: I can't really hear you too well, Bondie, I would
Speaker 1: rely on the list that Deputy Attorney General Blanche at
Speaker 1: the time released, given the reasons why things were withheld. Men.
Speaker 1: Actually just quoting what you said earlier to the best
Speaker 1: I was able to transcribe it. But again you've said,
Speaker 1: much of it is duplicative, some of it was privileged,
Speaker 1: and some had nothing to do with Epstein. And I
Speaker 1: guess I'm just curious how many fell into each bucket,
Speaker 1: you know, how many were duplicative, how many were privileged,
Speaker 1: how many had nothing to do with Epstein. Dylan, this
Speaker 1: has already been out answered, Min. Okay, maybe I missed it.
Speaker 1: Would you mind answering the question? Dylan, this has been
Speaker 1: asked and answered repeatedly. If you want to check, Min,
Speaker 1: if you don't know, I think I missed it, and
Speaker 1: sometimes it's hard to hear. So if you don't want
Speaker 1: to answer, Dylan, well you may have missed it because
Speaker 1: you aren't here. Yo, are these people Okay, seriously, has
Speaker 1: professionalism just went out the window? Act accordingly missed? Dylan.
Speaker 1: I believe you were out doing an interview and missed it.
Speaker 1: But what happened? We discussed it and I said, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure the exact number of documents, but that is
Speaker 1: listed somewhere. Maybe she was busy looking at the dow Again,
Speaker 1: Min okay, Bondi, I believe it's been released to you. Min,
Speaker 1: So I want to drill down on the privileged aspect
Speaker 1: of that. Do you know what type of privilege was
Speaker 1: being asserted or is that a question for mister blanche Dylan. Again,
Speaker 1: this has been asked and answered. Min Okay, Dylan, Again,
Speaker 1: you were not in the room Redactediness can answer that. Min.
Speaker 1: I'm a member. I'm asking my own questions. Dylan, You're
Speaker 1: not on this side of the table redacted. Let her
Speaker 1: figure it out, Bondie. I've answered that multiple times, Min.
Speaker 1: Would you mind answering again? BONDI know what's in the transcript.
Speaker 1: Min Okay, I guess I just wanted you had said
Speaker 1: earlier that the prosecution memo would be the type of
Speaker 1: evidence that's privileged. Would the documents of evidence assembly by
Speaker 1: the collected by the FBI and dj that went into
Speaker 1: the decision to prosecute or not prosecute. Would that also
Speaker 1: be considered privileged under the DOJ's view of what was produced? Bondi,
Speaker 1: somehow your microphone is echoing min okay, when we're talking
Speaker 1: about what is privileged, you said earlier that a prosecution
Speaker 1: memo would be the type of document that's privileged. Would
Speaker 1: that document or evidence collected by the FBI and DOJ
Speaker 1: that went into a decision to prosecute or not prosecute,
Speaker 1: would that also be considered privilege when the DOJ was
Speaker 1: deciding whether or not to produce evidence to produce any
Speaker 1: of the Epstein files. Bondy, I'd have to look at
Speaker 1: the specific document, Min. I'm just asking a general question.
Speaker 1: Were the documents withheld? And specifically, I guess I want
Speaker 1: to get to the question the three h two witness
Speaker 1: statements which do not seem to have been produced, and
Speaker 1: we have had a lot of survivors as noted, was
Speaker 1: noted as for those three oh two witness statements for theirselves,
Speaker 1: the ones that were transcribed that they took many years ago,
Speaker 1: those apparently were withheld. What's the basis for that withholding
Speaker 1: and why were they not produced, Bondy, As I said earlier,
Speaker 1: I would rely on the basis for any withholding of
Speaker 1: documents in the memo that Deputy Attorney General Blanche released,
Speaker 1: laying out all the reasons. Min. So you have no knowledge,
Speaker 1: Bondi continues, items not being released. Men, you have no
Speaker 1: knowledge or you were not in charge. You had no
Speaker 1: direction on these decisions on what to withhold, Bondi. I
Speaker 1: did not do the review. I've said that earlier. Men, right,
Speaker 1: but there seems to have been a systemic policy in
Speaker 1: place to have withheld certain documents for ad to the
Speaker 1: decision to prosecute or not prosecute. I'm just trying to
Speaker 1: clarify if that was the case, Bondi, Well, I don't
Speaker 1: agree with your assessment of systemic. She gets cut off
Speaker 1: by men. How would you characterize what was allowed to
Speaker 1: be produced? Then? In this case, Bondy, I believe that
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice acted in good faith in releasing
Speaker 1: all the documents permissible under the law, and I would
Speaker 1: refer you it again to the Deputy Attorney General's memo,
Speaker 1: and he came in here before this body to discuss
Speaker 1: all these topics and all of you walked out men,
Speaker 1: so we will have to ask mister Blanche that I
Speaker 1: appreciate it. Dylan, please don't talk over the witness. Min
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I have one minute left, so I'm going
Speaker 1: to reclaim. They're just going through all these fights now
Speaker 1: and it's stupid, a waste of time, exactly what we
Speaker 1: don't need. Who cares about Dave min whatever his name
Speaker 1: is and Pam Bondi in their stupid little fight. Min.
Speaker 1: So I'm just going to I apologize for the interruption,
Speaker 1: but this is the nature of this. Unfortunately, I have
Speaker 1: a question about the redactions or non redactions of survivors
Speaker 1: personal information. I know you have described this as a
Speaker 1: situation where you had a lot of documents to produce.
Speaker 1: I know you have said that mister Stanley Woodward was
Speaker 1: primarily responsible for the review and production of these documents.
Speaker 1: I guess my question is this. First of all, there
Speaker 1: were a number of nude photos allowed to be produced,
Speaker 1: and again I know that was not under your purview.
Speaker 1: That seems to me to be shocking, like this does
Speaker 1: not seem like something that should ever be produced, and
Speaker 1: any attorney in a law firm that allowed something like
Speaker 1: that to be produced in public in this context would
Speaker 1: be fired. So I guess my question is were there
Speaker 1: any disciplinary proceedings taken against any attorneys or otherwise who
Speaker 1: allowed for improper identifying information about the victims to be
Speaker 1: produced or nude photos to be produced? Bondy. As I
Speaker 1: said earlier, the Department of Justice, under the law that
Speaker 1: you voted for, gave us thirty days to release approximately
Speaker 1: thirty million dilan three million, Bondie, I'm sorry, thirty days
Speaker 1: to release approximately three million documents. Six million were reviewed,
Speaker 1: and during that time we were very concerned that there
Speaker 1: would be errors, and that's why we produced on a
Speaker 1: rolling release of documents. But I believe everyone acted in
Speaker 1: good faith. I hope they did in doing the best
Speaker 1: they could. But yes, there was human error. Yes, we've
Speaker 1: discussed that multiple times. Min. I will just note that
Speaker 1: it took you much longer than thirty days to produce,
Speaker 1: and these were nude photos. These were not like a
Speaker 1: line that was missed. It's really hard for me to
Speaker 1: imagine that this was done in good faith. But with that,
Speaker 1: I yield back. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up
Speaker 1: right here and in the next episode, dealing with the topic,
Speaker 1: We're gonna pick up where we left off. All the
Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
Speaker 1: the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another
Speaker 1: episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna
Speaker 1: pick up where we left off with Pam Bondi and
Speaker 1: her chat with the Congressional Oversight Committee, and we're picking
Speaker 1: up with questioning being done by I, Miss Stansbury. Well
Speaker 1: I get started. I'm going to ask if staff can
Speaker 1: pass out Exhibit F, which is the Epstein File Transparency Act,
Speaker 1: because I'm going to refer to a section in my
Speaker 1: later question. But former Attorney General, I want to ask
Speaker 1: about some more specific individuals who are named in the
Speaker 1: files as potential perpetrators of crimes associated with Epstein. And
Speaker 1: I want to ask, during your tenure as the AG,
Speaker 1: to your knowledge, did the DOJ investigate any of the
Speaker 1: following individuals and so if you would answer yes or no,
Speaker 1: I'd appreciate it. Prince Andrew Bondi, I'm not sure if
Speaker 1: he's subject of appending investigation. I'm not sure who is
Speaker 1: or who is not subject to an investigation. As I
Speaker 1: stated earlier, Jay Clayton had opened an investigation in New York,
Speaker 1: so I wouldn't be able to give you any names,
Speaker 1: whether they were or were not, are or are not
Speaker 1: being investigated or have been Stansbury. I appreciate that, BONDI.
Speaker 1: I would refer that to Jay Clayton Stansbury. I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: I'm going to go ahead and go through the names,
Speaker 1: notwithstanding the comment you just made, because I do think
Speaker 1: that it's important to have the record. Another prominent name
Speaker 1: is Leon Black. Do you know if there was any
Speaker 1: investigation pending or open during your tenure? BONDI. I would
Speaker 1: refer you again to Jay Clayton, Stansbury, Glen Dubin, BONDI,
Speaker 1: do you want to go through the list? Stansbury. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go through the list, BONDI. Do you want
Speaker 1: to go through it all? And then I can answer
Speaker 1: if any of them Stansbury. Just for the record, let's
Speaker 1: do each one. Glenn Dubin please, Bondy, I would refer
Speaker 1: it to the Deputy Attorney General or Jay Clayton Stansbury, Okay,
Speaker 1: Jess Staley, Bondie, same answer, Stansbury, Les Wexner Bondie, Sam
Speaker 1: Answer Stansbury, Alan Dershowitz Bondie. Sam answer Stansbury, Paulo Zampoli Bondi,
Speaker 1: Sam answer Stansbury, Donald Trump, Bondie, Sam answer Stansbury. When
Speaker 1: you left the department in April, had you been briefed
Speaker 1: on any investigation or any open cases regarding the Epstein
Speaker 1: case at all? Bondie. I can't answer whether there is
Speaker 1: or not appending investigation into anyone and that includes all
Speaker 1: the names that you listed, Stansbury. So is this sitting
Speaker 1: US Attorney General overseeing the case? And I understand that
Speaker 1: you referred to Todd Blanche many times as being the
Speaker 1: managing supervisor of the case and the release of the files,
Speaker 1: you were not briefed on any of the prominent names,
Speaker 1: including the President, and whether or not anyone was investigating
Speaker 1: their appearance in the files. Bondie. It's privileged and protected information.
Speaker 1: And I'm not going to discuss that, Stansbury. And which privilege?
Speaker 1: Which privilege are you asserting? Dylan, Yeah, we're not having
Speaker 1: to assert privilege. This is a transcribed interview. Stansbury. I'm
Speaker 1: sorry the AG just asserted a privilege, Bondy. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to answer that. Stansbury. You're not going to answer
Speaker 1: what kind of privilege you're asserting or you're not going
Speaker 1: to answer the question, BONDI, I'm not going to answer
Speaker 1: whether there was or was not pending investigations again into
Speaker 1: anyone We've said that I've asked and answered. It's been
Speaker 1: asked and answered this question multiple times, Stansbury. Well, Madam A. G.
Speaker 1: The reason why I'm asking is because of Exhibit F,
Speaker 1: which is the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which sets out
Speaker 1: what files were required under the federal law to be
Speaker 1: released to Congress and the public. And it specifically states
Speaker 1: in the second page of the Act, as signed into
Speaker 1: law by the President, that all internal DOJ communication, including emails, memos,
Speaker 1: meeting notes concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or
Speaker 1: decline to investigate epstein ER's associates were required to be
Speaker 1: disclosed by the Epstein File Transparency Act. And then it
Speaker 1: has a list of permitted withholdings. And there is nothing
Speaker 1: in this law that allows the assertion of any kind
Speaker 1: of privile that you've discussed today. In fact, the law
Speaker 1: was very explicit that those privileges could not be asserted.
Speaker 1: And so part of why I'm asking you if there's
Speaker 1: a pending investigation into some of the individuals is because
Speaker 1: their names were adacted in the publicly released files, and
Speaker 1: when we looked at them unredacted as members of Congress,
Speaker 1: the only redactions that were permitted were for open cases.
Speaker 1: So I'm asking were their pending investigations into any of
Speaker 1: these individuals, Dylan, that's asked and answered Bondie. I've answered
Speaker 1: the question, Stansbury. Okay, Well, I would assert then that
Speaker 1: is a breaking of the law because the law is
Speaker 1: very clear about what privilege and what material were supposed
Speaker 1: to be released. And my final question is, you know,
Speaker 1: the survivors have made very clear the release of their names.
Speaker 1: There are personally identifiable information, home addresses, phone numbers, photographs
Speaker 1: of many of them when they were miners, we're talking
Speaker 1: children were released publicly. How would you answer for that?
Speaker 1: Do you personally feel responsible for that, Bondie? As I
Speaker 1: said earlier, we were given thirty days to release three
Speaker 1: million plus documents, and our concern, our primary concern, was
Speaker 1: protecting the identity of the victims. And I believe everyone
Speaker 1: in the Department of Justice feels horrible when any victim's
Speaker 1: name or identifying information is released. Stansbury, But do you
Speaker 1: feel personally responsible at all, Bondie. I believe everyone who
Speaker 1: was involved in the process would, and I believe you
Speaker 1: should too, because you were pressing us to get three
Speaker 1: million pages out in thirty days and that was virtually impossible. Stansbury. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm not personally responsible for the Department of Justice. I
Speaker 1: don't work there. Bondie, you were telling us she gets
Speaker 1: cut off by Stansbury. BONDI cuts her off if I
Speaker 1: could finish. You were telling us to get Stansbury cuts
Speaker 1: her off. My question is about you, as the sitting
Speaker 1: Attorney General. You oversaw the implementation. Even if you delegated this,
Speaker 1: you were responsible. You're the named human in the Epstein
Speaker 1: files transparency. Yet, do you have any remorse over the
Speaker 1: release of Dylan jumps In? Okay, this verges on badgering, BONDI.
Speaker 1: I've she gets cut off by Dylan and tedious BONDI
Speaker 1: back at it. I've answered this question multiple times that
Speaker 1: we feel sorry for the victims whose names were released inadvertently. Stansbury. Well,
Speaker 1: for many of the victims, these women, they will not
Speaker 1: be able to reclaim their privacy. So I yield to
Speaker 1: the next member. Now it's mister Walkinshaw, Miss BONDI add
Speaker 1: my name to the list of folks wishing you a
Speaker 1: speedy recovery. In March of twenty twenty five, FBI personnel
Speaker 1: and we've discussed this already a little bit reviewed one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand Epstein documents. That was long before the Transparency
Speaker 1: Act passed, of course, so there wasn't a statutory framework
Speaker 1: for that review, at least not one specific to it.
Speaker 1: Under Whose authority was that review conducted? BONDI? I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: what date were you, Walkinshaw picks up in March of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty the one hundred thousand documents? Was that under
Speaker 1: your authority? Bondy? Yes, and I delegated that to Todd
Speaker 1: Blanche Walkinshaw, Okay. And do you know what instructions were
Speaker 1: given to those reviewers? Bondi. I believe we have released
Speaker 1: the instructions that were given, but those may have been
Speaker 1: given later. Walkinshaw. Have you released all because I know
Speaker 1: that there was a Foyer request? Bondy, Uh huh. Walkinshaw,
Speaker 1: to your knowledge, have all of the instructions to reviewers
Speaker 1: been released publicly? Bondy, I don't know, Walkinshaw, Okay. Were
Speaker 1: those reviewers instructed the flag mentions of Donald Trump. Bondy,
Speaker 1: I don't believe so, Walkinshaw, Okay. Because it's been reported
Speaker 1: there's a whistle blower who came forward. There are documents
Speaker 1: that the media has cited saying those reviewers were instructed
Speaker 1: to flag mentions of Donald Trump. You don't have any
Speaker 1: knowledge of that, Bondye. I have not seen. I have
Speaker 1: not heard of a whistleblower saying that I have no
Speaker 1: knowledge of that. Walkinshaw, Okay. Senator Durbin sentsual a li
Speaker 1: or last year, citing that whistleblower. To your knowledge, have
Speaker 1: you responded or did the department, Miss Dylan, You can
Speaker 1: feel free to jump in. Did the department respond to
Speaker 1: that letter that Senator Durbin sent, Bondye, we can ask
Speaker 1: Patrick Davis, who runs that department, Walkinshaw, Okay. To your knowledge,
Speaker 1: were any records flagged flagged for whatever reason, since you
Speaker 1: don't recall whether they were flags of mentions of Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: any records that were flagged in the process ultimately withheld
Speaker 1: or redacted from the Transparency Act release, Bondie, I don't
Speaker 1: believe reviewers were asked to flag anything. To my knowledge, Walkinshaw, Okay,
Speaker 1: all right, Bondie, there were over five hundred attorneys at
Speaker 1: some point reviewing documents, Lokinshaw. Uh huh, okay, So there
Speaker 1: was no flag of mentions of Donald Trump. No one
Speaker 1: came to you and said, we reviewed these one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand documents and there are x number of mentions of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. No one ever said that to you, Bondie.
Speaker 1: I don't believe anyone asked to flag anything. Walkinshaw. Okay,
Speaker 1: you stated early that it's common for the Bureau of
Speaker 1: Prisons to move prisoners, maybe based on their safety. Is
Speaker 1: it common in your experience for the Deputy Attorney General
Speaker 1: the personally interview prisoners. Is that common? Can you recall
Speaker 1: any other instance of the Deputy Attorney General personally interviewing prisoners?
Speaker 1: Bondi We were in office for a year, of course not.
Speaker 1: That was the only prisoner to my knowledge that he interviewed,
Speaker 1: and that was because she was living. Epstein's dead, and
Speaker 1: his intent was exactly what this committee is trying to
Speaker 1: get at, to find out if she had evidence of
Speaker 1: other crimes. Yoh, she was in prison, she's already convicted.
Speaker 1: What does that even mean. That's the most bullshit of
Speaker 1: bullshit excuses I've ever heard. It was about the cover up.
Speaker 1: It was about the exoneration of Donald Trump. That's all
Speaker 1: it was, Walkinshaw. She was in his inner circle, right
Speaker 1: very close to it, Bondie, And you can read the
Speaker 1: transcribed interview what he asked her, and it's very clear
Speaker 1: why he asked it, to see if there were other
Speaker 1: crimes that she knew about that had been committed. Walkinshaw.
Speaker 1: One of the things our investigation has revealed is that
Speaker 1: other individuals very close to Epstein were never interviewed by
Speaker 1: the FBI across multiple administrations. Kahn, Indicte, the accountant, the
Speaker 1: lawyer Les Wexner, whose money financed a lot of Epstein's trafficking.
Speaker 1: I mean, in your professional opinion as a former prosecutor,
Speaker 1: do you find it strange that the FBI never interviewed
Speaker 1: some of those figures very close to Epstein, And do
Speaker 1: you think they should, BONDI you're gonna have to ask
Speaker 1: Obama and Biden administrations the exact same thing. Nobody's asking them.
Speaker 1: They're asking you. God, she's disgusting, Walkinshaw. I said, it's
Speaker 1: multiple administrations. I'm asking you across all those administrations, is
Speaker 1: it strange to you. Do you think those individuals should have,
Speaker 1: perhaps still should be interviewed by the FBI, Bondi, if
Speaker 1: there was evidence of wrongdoing, yes, and I would direct
Speaker 1: that to the FBI. And I would also direct that
Speaker 1: to the Biden administration, who had four years Walkinshaw. But
Speaker 1: it was a memo while you were Attorney General that
Speaker 1: said the case closed, nothing else to be seen here,
Speaker 1: We're not going to investigate anything. Bondi, you're mischaracterizing that.
Speaker 1: Can you read that to me? Where I said case closed, Walkinshaw,
Speaker 1: those key figures close to Abstein were not interviewed. Deputy
Speaker 1: Attorney General Blanche went and spent a lot of time
Speaker 1: with Clan Maxwell, but other figures close to Abstein never
Speaker 1: even got interviewed by the FBI. Why didn't you stay
Speaker 1: to the FBI? Y'all need to go and interview some
Speaker 1: of those folks. Bondi, you're mischaracterizing, Walkinshaw. I'm asking you
Speaker 1: a question, Bondy. No, you're mischaracterizing something that you've stated
Speaker 1: was in the document. Can you read it back to me, Walkinshaw,
Speaker 1: I'm asking you why didn't you, as a former prosecutor,
Speaker 1: a professional who understands these cases, look at it and say,
Speaker 1: these folks who are in the inner circle of Epstein's
Speaker 1: massive sex trafficking ring were never investigated. My boss, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump ran on the issue. I'm gonna make sure that
Speaker 1: there a question and interviewed so that we can get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of it. Why didn't you do that,
Speaker 1: miss Bondi? Bondi Deputy Attorney General Blanche interviewed Maxwell to
Speaker 1: see if she had evidence of any other crimes. To
Speaker 1: the best of my knowledge, that transcript is widely available. Walkinshaw,
Speaker 1: you asked me to gets cut off by Bondi. You
Speaker 1: criticized him interviewing her, but his interview to try to
Speaker 1: answer your question, Walkinshaw, I'm asking why didn't y'all interview
Speaker 1: anyone else? You said we did not uncover evidence that
Speaker 1: could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. Some people
Speaker 1: who might have had evidence were Epstein's lawyer, his accountant,
Speaker 1: his financier Wexner. Why didn't you direct that they at
Speaker 1: least be interviewed and questioned Bondi? That statement is very
Speaker 1: different from the one you asked earlier. Walkinshaw, I'm asking
Speaker 1: you a question, why didn't you direct that they be
Speaker 1: interviewed to uncover perhaps evidence that could predicate an investigation
Speaker 1: against uncharged third parties. Why didn't you that, BONDI, I've
Speaker 1: answered that multiple times. Walkinshaw, you haven't answered it. You
Speaker 1: don't have an answer, BONDI. You also misrepresented something that
Speaker 1: I just had to read it back redacted. All right,
Speaker 1: We've got a few last questions and we're coming to
Speaker 1: an end. I'll be brief. One question is some members
Speaker 1: have experienced that in the reading room some documents that
Speaker 1: they go see on redacted still have some redactions on them.
Speaker 1: Do you have any understanding of how or why a
Speaker 1: document in the reading room would still have redactions? BONDI, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I believe that's because some of the documents were sealed
Speaker 1: redacted by SDNY. When we receive them, we receive them redacted,
Speaker 1: is my understanding of that. But I would have to
Speaker 1: look at the specific document and see where it came from.
Speaker 1: Question do you have any recollection of any other category
Speaker 1: of redaction other than the one you just described? Answer no. Question.
Speaker 1: As Attorney General of Florida, did you ever look into
Speaker 1: potential co conspirators of Epstein's crimes? Answer that would have
Speaker 1: been the state attorney in Palm Beach who had jurisdiction
Speaker 1: over the federal authorities. I was only had the office's
Speaker 1: statewide prosecutor. Question a few follow ups on the topic
Speaker 1: that we discussed earlier, of members going to DOJ to
Speaker 1: review files and records that may have existed of member searches.
Speaker 1: It came up high profile at one of your hearings.
Speaker 1: I just want to make sure I understood correctly. Was
Speaker 1: your description that it was not deliberate change in policy
Speaker 1: at DOJ, that was just a function of how the
Speaker 1: DOJ system is set up. Is that fair or correct?
Speaker 1: Bondy No. I believe this was unprecedented what we did
Speaker 1: putting three million pages online, and part of the system
Speaker 1: included monitoring sensitive information that was on there and people
Speaker 1: reviewing it. It was built into the system and it's
Speaker 1: still in that system. Question, And that's what I was
Speaker 1: getting at, was a deliberate policy choice made to track
Speaker 1: and monitor member searches under the Epstein file. Answer? Not
Speaker 1: to my knowledge question. Okay, as far as you know,
Speaker 1: if a member went to the DOJ to review some
Speaker 1: other piece, some other document, some other piece of material,
Speaker 1: nothing to do with Epstein. Would that search typically be
Speaker 1: tracked in the same way? Answer? I don't believe a
Speaker 1: member can go look at anything online. The system was
Speaker 1: set up with over three million to six million pages
Speaker 1: of documents to protect victim's identity to the best we could,
Speaker 1: and of course they all weren't protected. Question and so
Speaker 1: your knowledge DOJ's usage of the member search history, it
Speaker 1: sounds like is restricted to protecting survivor's identities. Is that
Speaker 1: your recollection? In other words, how did the DOJ use
Speaker 1: that information? Answer? Can you rephrase the question? Question? Sure? So,
Speaker 1: DOJ has or least had member search history When members
Speaker 1: would come review different files and they choose which files
Speaker 1: they wanted to review, how did the department use that
Speaker 1: information to your recollection? Answer regarding Epstein question yes, specifically
Speaker 1: tracking member Epstein's searches. Answer, I don't know. I don't recall.
Speaker 1: Question as far as you know, if a member went
Speaker 1: to review an Epstein file on redacted today at DOJ,
Speaker 1: would their search records be tracked in the same way? Answer?
Speaker 1: I believe that's part of the program and they had
Speaker 1: to be tracked. I believe, I'm not certain. Question A
Speaker 1: couple of last miscellaneous ones with respect to mister Epstein's death,
Speaker 1: is your personal review that he committed suicide? Answer? I
Speaker 1: would rely on the FBI's investigation. Question are you aware
Speaker 1: of any information indicating that mister Epstein worked for a
Speaker 1: domestic or a foreign intelligence service? Answer not personally. I
Speaker 1: would rely on the FBI's investigation. Redacted. That concludes my questions.
Speaker 1: I'll just state for the record that the minority did
Speaker 1: have additional questions that would have fallen within one of
Speaker 1: the parameters that you or your council described, specifically with
Speaker 1: respect to conversations with the President. We withheld some of
Speaker 1: those questions for your sake, but we want to note
Speaker 1: for the record that those are important questions to us
Speaker 1: and we think they deserve to be answered in the investigation.
Speaker 1: With that, I will thank you for your time today
Speaker 1: and we can go off the record. Ms Bondi, thank you,
Speaker 1: all right, folks. That's going to do it for the
Speaker 1: Bondi interview with the House Oversight Committee, And next up
Speaker 1: we're going to be diving in to the Sarah Kellen transcript.
Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
Speaker 1: found in the description box.